Hello Guest, if you reading this it means you have not yet registered. Please take a second to Click here to register and in a few simple steps, you will be able to enjoy all the many features of our fine community. Please note that nicknames are prohibited lewd or meaningless (no numbers or letters at random) and introduce yourself in the section for you to meet our community.

America - Champion for Peace

America - Champion for Peace
August 2, 2005
by Michael P. Tremoglie

How many nations could genuinely say that they had the real potential to conquer the world or destroy it? How many nations had an arsenal capable of obliterating any other nation without risking retaliation? How many nations, with an army and navy superior to any others, an industry and economy capable of producing more weapons and material than any other, with forces already deployed for conquest, how many nations would try to conquer the world while they had such advantages?

Sixty years ago, this was exactly situation in which the United States of America found itself.

American military forces were already deployed around the world in 1946. The American economy was already mobilized for war - and was already the arsenal for all other world powers. America was in sole possession of the most destructive weapon ever invented by human beings and could, quite conceivably, destroy whatever was remaining of the rest of the world without being at risk one iota.

Nations like the Soviet Union, Britain, Germany, Japan, and China were near ruin. Their populations were demoralized. Their military forces and arsenals depleted. Their cities and towns were demolished. If we Americans were the imperialists “peace” proponents say we are, we could easily have conquered these other nations.

So, what actions did we take? What was the response of our “ imperialist ”government? Did we conquer other nations? Did we use our nuclear weapons to demand ransom for other countries? Did we impose reparations or invade our former allies? Did we exploit our advantages to conquer the world?

No, instead we offered to rebuild the nations destroyed by war. We allowed other nation’s armies to occupy the territory we conquered. However, most of all, in a gesture that was the most altruistic in human history, we offered to destroy our nuclear weapons.

The United States of America, the world’s only nuclear superpower, in June 1946, presented to the United Nations a plan that eliminated America’s atomic bomb monopoly. This plan, called the Baruch Plan after FDR’s adviser Bernard Baruch, proposed the creation of an international commission to monitor and develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes only, and to ensure no other country would develop nuclear weapons.

Would Stalin’s Soviet Union have done such a thing? Hitler’s Germany? Fascist Italy? Imperial Japan? Communist China? North Korea? How about the peace loving peoples of North Vietnam, or Cuba, or Iran, or Sandinista Nicaragua? What about Baathist Iraq or Syria? How about Osama bin Laden? Would there have been a Saddam Hussein Plan of disarmament presented to the UN? A bin Laden Plan?

Instead of using our nuclear weapons to conquer, we offered to disarm ourselves of our nuclear weapons. We wanted to create a world where nuclear energy was used only for peace.

The UN rejected the plan. It was vetoed by the USSR.

Yet, some say, both at home and abroad, that America is militaristic and imperialistic. We are lectured that we are a nation whose only concern is controlling the world. It is said that we have a history of world conquest.

When you hear such claims remember the Baruch Plan. Especially remember this on the 60th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Remember as we are treated by the mainstream media to the sight of anti-war protestors, led by anti-Americans, who will tell us that America murdered Japanese civilians by using nuclear weapons because we are racists.

Of course, these “peace” activists will not mention the Baruch plan. They will not say that Japan was one of the first nations to bomb civilians. They will not say that the Imperial Japanese policy of occupying a nation did not include establishing free elections. No, Imperial Japanese occupation policy was instead known for the Rape of Nanking.

The “ peace” protesters will say that Japan was close to surrendering and we did not have to use the bomb. This is not true. If Japan were close to surrendering, why did they not do so even after Hiroshima - another bomb had to be used. If anything, this indicates the fanaticism of the Japanese Empire of the Sun.

These “protestors” will never tell you that more civilians were killed during the Battle of Berlin between the USSR and the Nazis, than were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Therefore, in this sense, the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved lives.

None of these pertinent facts will be mentioned because those who lead the campaign for peace are not concerned about peace. They are concerned about obtaining political and economic control of the United States.

When Baruch spoke to the UN to present his plan he began his speech by saying, “"We are here to make a choice between the quick and the dead. That is our business…If we fail, then we have damned every man to be the slave of fear."

Damning people is exactly what the so-called peace activists have in mind.

Michael Tremoglie

Michael P. Tremoglie is a writer whose work has appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, Human Events, Front Page and Insight magazines. He is working on his first novel 'A Sense of Duty'. E-mail him at elfegobaca2@earthlink.net